Point Blank with John Boorman

Point Blank with John Boorman

The 1972 edition of Georges Sadoul’s “Dictionary of Filmmakers” notesthat John Boorman, that “ex-TV director who attracted attention with thethriller, ‘Point Blank‘ (1967) . . . has not fulfilled his earlierpromise.” Of course, this edition came out too early to includeBoorman’s landmark “Deliverance” (1972), along with “The Emerald Forest“(1985), “Hope and Glory” (1987) and the now much acclaimed “TheGeneral.”

Based on the story of Martin Cahill, a vicious Dublin gangster who stoleover $60 million during his lengthy career, “The General” was shot instartling black and white and is vital proof of a director very much incontrol and at the height of his powers.

We caught up with the 65-year-old helmer during the New York FilmFestival where he was being doubly honored with screenings of two of hispictures. He allowed us some time before running off for a Village Voicephoto shoot. Sony Pictures Classics will release “The General” in NewYork today, December 18th.

indieWIRE: Lots of professions have time limits on them. Ballet dancers,often in their forties or fifties, become teachers. But with directors,there seems to be no cut-off period. John Huston was directing “TheDead” while connected to oxygen. Do you feel there’s such a thing asbeing too old to direct?

Boorman: Well, you mention John Huston in a wheelchair, but for the mostpart, directing is a very physical occupation. You’re always climbing uponto cranes, changing positions, and crawling around the floor. So it isphysical, and you do need legs. And not just that. But it’s just thehours and the long length of the days, and the stress is considerable,so I’m not sure how you . . . I mean there are . . . Who is it? What’shis name? Oliveira is still directing at 86, isn’t he? Or 88. It doeshappen, but on the whole . . . Huston’s late films were very goodfrom “Prizzi’s Honor” almost through to “The Dead.” Anjelica said to me,“The reason they were so good is that he was too ill to go off cruisingand adventuring as he used to do when he finished a picture. He’d justwalk away and let other people finish it. Now he was too ill to doanything else so he just worked on his movies.” (Laughs) So perhapsthere’s a lesson there.

iW: So if there’s ever a sad time when Mr. Boorman retires, can youimagine how you’d fill those days up? Books, fishing or . . .

Boorman: Well, I write all the time. I’ve done it all my life. I keepjournals. I’ve published a number of books. I do edit this series“Projections” every year with Walter Donohue, and I have started mymemoirs. So if my physical powers were failing, I think I would makesmaller, very personal pictures that I could handle.

iW: Has “The General” opened in Ireland?

Boorman: Oh, yes.

iW: Was it a major success there?

Boorman: Huge as you’d expect.

iW: With films like “Bonnie and Clyde,” some critics with a sociologicalbent think it’s problematic that the audiences identify with heroes whoare criminals. Do you feel that will happen with “The General”?

Boorman: Oddly enough, of course you know by coincidence “Point Blank”is playing with “The General” at the New York Film Festival, and bothare about a criminal. So the conventional wisdom in Hollywood is thatyou must have a hero you can root for who is a good guy, and youidentify with him.

With Lee Marvin and Brendan Gleeson in those two roles, it’s a differentrelationship with the audience really. To some extent, you are drawn tothem in spite of yourself in some way. There’s a policeman who the JonVoight character is based on. He said something very interesting to mewhich sort of stuck in my head. He said, “You know people think ofcriminals as being a separate species. They’re not. They’re just like usexcept they can make crimes.” I think it’s easy to push the idea ofcriminals away from us. “They’re different people.” In fact, of course,they’re not, and therefore perhaps it’s slightly uncomfortable to seethe criminal possibilities in ourselves when you identify with acharacter like that. Remember what happened with “Peeping Tom” andMichael Powell. Because he made the film so subjective and you were inthe mind of this pervert, it was reviled. It really ended his career.

iW: That’s never happened to you, thank God.

Boorman: Well, I’ve had some near misses.

iW: But how do you keep going on as a filmmaker? All those little thingslike financing, studio heads, fighting for editorial control, etc.?

Boorman: I think the tragedy of being a film director is that we spendmore time on the films that we don’t make than the ones we do make.Constantly there are projects which you work on and develop, and theydon’t come to fruition for one reason or another. Sometimes, you justgive up on it yourself because it ceases to interest you. I mean I findthat I don’t really know if I want to make a film until I’ve reallygotten working on it. I’m working on the script and if it continues toexcite me and interest me, I’ll go on with it. But very often itdoesn’t. And if you look at the year, 18 months, or two years ahead ofyou of being involved with that project, if it doesn’t capture you, it’svery foolish to do it. And there’s lots of other things in life that Ilike doing. I’ve made a number of shorts. I made “Two Nudes Bathing,” ahalf hour film which was in Cannes a couple of years ago, and anotherone called “I Dreamt I Woke Up” which is an autobiographical film, anhour long. Yes, so I’m doing a lot of things.

iW: Are they available on video?

Boorman: Not here, no. Those two films are being distributed in Paristheatrically in the next couple of months.

[Brandon Judell is currently a film critic for Entertainment Asylum onAmerica Online and the Metro Guide channel.]